Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: yesss! Date: Jul 4, 2008 10:33am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: A thought about Brent

yeah, brent should have had a real piano, real rhodes, real clav, analog synth, and the hammond, but it was, like, totally the 80's for sure. keith certainly had a more organic sound palette- and i really really love those tones (especially the piano-with-a-wah from 72)- but sometimes it just added more dull midrange sound that blended with weir's guitar to create a kind of vague grey wash. plus he was so sleepy half the time. so it's a trade off - brent added a lot of color and brought a lot of energy to the situation but you have to sit through the occasional cheesy tone and "micheal mcdonald moment". if you can avoid or ignore the plinky chorused fake rhodes and icy icy synths you still get to enjoy the big juicy electric blasts from the b-3 which, imho, is one of the best things about 80' dead. but i hear you about generally preferring keith's sound as i probably listen to ten times as much 70's dead as i do 80's- and that is largely due to the sound of the band. too bad brent didn't just stick to the classics because he sure sounds good playing piano on the acoustic sets from 80.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: L.A. Women Date: Jul 4, 2008 12:21pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: A thought about Brent

Well said yesss, and I couldn't agree more about the acoustic sets from 80.

This post was modified by L.A. Women on 2008-07-04 19:21:53